'Do you believe in the BBC licence fee?' poll discussion

Cleany

Corona wrote: »

To have the option of so many channels (both TV and Radio) with no advertisements is worth far more than the licence fee. And the website is fantastic. Everything from news to gardening advice to learning a language!

Why are we forced to pay for that just to watch TV?

Corona wrote: »

Being able to watch both programmes and films without a break - luxury!

Yes - a luxury that you are happy to pay for, while others are forced to against their will.

ITS ABOUT CHOICE

Cleany

kcm wrote: »

Each to their own.

It's not though is it.

kcm wrote: »

I certainly don't thnk it's perfect, I think it's just better than Sky and ITV etc etc. I'd welcome a review of the the way we pay our licence fee and hey if it could be brought down a few pounds then hurrah. However, I don't want that to mean we get substandard TV or ads for every five mins of a programme! I'd actually pay more to not get ads and I'd pay even more on top to ensure Rupert Murdoch doesn't get anywhere near it ever!!!!! Who do you think starts all these 'down with the bbc' stories in the (Rupert Murdoch owned) papers in the first place!!! Yeah ok the clue was in the question . RM despises the BBC because it's the one thing he has no say in (yet - now he bankrolled the Tories who are now in power!!) So I will always pay a premium to ensure he stays away!

You choose to believe we're in the middle of a conspiracy war between Rupert Murdoch and the BBC.

kcm wrote: »

Everyone has their own opinions based on their own values and that's great. For me personally I consider what I want my kids to inherit in ten years time and I think the BBC suit my personal values on that front. Each to their own.

How lucky for you that the rest of the country are forced to pay to promote your values that you personally choose.

Each to their own.

lucylucky

"You choose to believe we're in the middle of a conspiracy war between Rupert Murdoch and the BBC."

Sounds about right to me;)

AgarM

To say ads would ruin BBC is not a real argument as the BBC could set its own terms as to when it shows ads and for how long, for example they could have a 3 min slot before and after each programme with no adverts in between, which is what they do at the moment but only for their own products. There would be no difference apart from they would be paid.

Again product placement, instead of someone going into the Vic and asking for a pint they would say a brand, nothing wrong with that it happens in everyday life. They have to do something as this argument has been going on for years, they have too much wastage I mean it spends millions each year on logo changes for its brands.

Mary_Hartnell

Perhaps the poll should have included another question:-

I have lived in a typical Mid West town in USA and much preferred the TV offerings over there: yes or no ?

Renya

I like the BBC, they've had some brilliant dramas recently and even though they're not perfect I think when they get it right it's brilliant. I know it's probably been said a lot, but I hate it when you start to really get into a TV show and it suddenly cuts to adverts :mad:

I'd love if there was a feature to tweak how much you pay dependant on what you watch or listen to, for example, if you never listen to Radio 3, then you don't pay for it, or maybe then again the less-popular stations would have to be cut because they're not generating enough money.

I don't think I'd ever want to pay for Sky/Virgin etc unless I can really afford it, we've got Freeview and I'm happy with it.

Cleany

Skeenfleent wrote: »

Well I agree about there being SOME good content on there but you have to pay more and more to make it interesting. One can't have the best sports channel, the best foreign channel, the best music channel and the best film channel as well as the best documentary channel and just pay for those, so what's your point again?
If Sky said you could pay only for what you use, in a pick and mix fashion, it would be better, but they don't, not individual channels and pay-for-what-you-watch. Why? Because popular channels subsidise the unpopular ones, exactly like the BBC is subsidised by people who don't watch it but who buy a TV licence.
Sure, it's a choice whether to pay for Sky, but in order to watch content, it's still either no TV or forced subsidising, just like the BBC.

Incidentally, surely the BBC has SOMETHING you like, or are you just avoiding it on principle? That Sky+ PVR will record whatever there is...

But I can watch TV without paying for Sky. I can't watch ANY TV without paying for the BBC, radio, website and all.

Skeenfleent wrote: »

Incidentally, surely the BBC has SOMETHING you like, or are you just avoiding it on principle? That Sky+ PVR will record whatever there is...

I like QI and watch F1, that's about all I would really miss.

What I don't like is the way that all programmes are subject to being processed by some money spending machine which pointlessly tries to make all programmes satisfy all people. More flashy graphics, pathetic, loud and annoying music on all the wildlife programmes which make them unwatchable.

If the BBC really were independant and didn't have to tick all the popularity boxes like the commercial channels, and didn't do this spending a lot more money that all of them, I wouldn't mind.

Do you remember Life On Earth? It was great. I tried to watch one of the new Attenborough documentaries (something about water, can't remember what it was called) but there was stupid plinky plonky noises and loud incidental music all the way throught it. If we're going to have dumbed down TV like this then we shouldn't have to pay for it. And it's all the same. You can't watch the F1 without CGI crap flying about the place with whooshy noises all the time.

It's a massive box-ticking beaurocracy that's paid for by millions of people against their wishes but acts like a commercial organisation. There's tonnes of crap on there just like Sky and anything else. There are no adverts, but you still can't watch the credits of any TV program or film without someone talking over it.

Cleany

Gareth_Lazelle wrote: »

What does sky cost per year by comparison - £18 x 12 = £216 for just the basic package, and you have to watch the (all too frequent) ads too...

How could the BBC not be worth it by comparison?

1. You get access to hundreds of satellite channels.

2. You get a satellite dish.

3. You get setellite receiving equipment.

4. You get a hard disk recorder that can record 2 programmes at the same time, and what is widely acknowledged to be the best programme guide out there.

5. You get some very good programming. (House Lost etc.)

6. You can also get Sky broadband which is EASILY the best value from the big players, AND their traffic filtering is MILES better than the other big players.


That's why I pay for Sky. If I had to pay a subscription to the BBC the only thing that I would lose out on is the F1 and 5Live. I could watch QI on Dave at some point :P. And there are PLENTY of websites out there.

kcm_2

Cleany wrote: »

It's not though is it.



You choose to believe we're in the middle of a conspiracy war between Rupert Murdoch and the BBC.



How lucky for you that the rest of the country are forced to pay to promote your values that you personally choose.

Each to their own.

"You choose to believe we're in the middle of a conspiracy war between Rupert Murdoch and the BBC."

Hahahaha my friend, I don't choose that, my dad was an assis editor of a red top for what seemed like hundreds of years to me! I don't choose to believe I actually know what happens, I know most of the people who have to/have had to write that stuff to keep their jobs!!! No disrespect but before you have a go you shouldn't assume we're all idiots and you're the only smart one. Perhaps your opinion isn't the correct one on this occasion.

Incidently I agree with you on one thing in theory at least - should you necessarily have to pay for the bbc when you don't watch it. I'm afraid I have to say yes based on the current system, it would collapse if there was an opt out. But like you I'd welcome a grown up debate at least on how it could be done whilst keeping it ad free with quality content. More for those who can't afford it tho, than for those that just like to moan about it for moaning's sake but continue to watch it!

Cleany

English_Electric wrote: »

Bread is good value but I don't want to be forced to pay for bread and milk when all I want is milk. Those that require services should fund them, those that do not should not be compelled to. Sky is certainly far better value than the BBC IMO but this does not mean that those that choose not to watch Sky should be funding it so why is it ok for non BBC viewers to fund the BBC?

EXACTLY

Answer that someone please.